Talk:Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York

Self immolation man
Probably not a reaction to the Trump trial. Any objections to removing the section? I. R. Finch (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Removed, it evidently was not. 145.40.189.56 (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

New York Post
According to Reliable sources/Perennial sources:

There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. Editors consider the New York Post more reliable in the period before it changed ownership in 1976, and particularly unreliable for coverage involving the New York City Police Department. So it looks like we’re not supposed to use that source, unless the consensus changes.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The New York Post article included a video clip with the same wording. I've replaced the source with a Fox News clip.GobsPint (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Split portions of this and Conviction of Donald Trump
I propose we split portions of this article and Conviction of Donald Trump to a separate article called "Reactions to the conviction of Donald Trump". This is very important and distinct from these two articles. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * According to the chief legal correspondent for Politico, Trump has not officially been convicted yet: “Technically, it occurs when the court enters judgment of conviction at or shortly after sentencing. Until then, there is still the possibility the judge could set aside the verdicts.”. So maybe a split would be appropriate (and maybe not), but you’d have to use better terminology.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Reputable news organizations are using the term "convicted" (e.g. ). The English Wikipedia is already using the phrase "convicted on all charges". I don't think this technical distinction is particularly important, set-aside is very unlikely to happen, and we should feel free to use "conviction". -- Beland (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that's premature; let's wait and see if enough material accumulates such that this page gets overly long. I'm skeptical that reactions to world events are all that notable or important after the immediate news value dies away, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It will become clearer in a year or two if any of them have historic importance. Most of them will be fairly similar to the before-conviction reactions, so I don't think it makes sense to split the two. -- Beland (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * While I see your angle, I believe it's too soon to be able to split off an article specifically for the reactions to the conviction of Donald Trump. Additionally, there is no article yet for the conviction of Trump himself; the one you sent goes to his prosecution in New York where he was convicted in (which, as you stated, has a significant difference), and i feel that even that would be too soon to discuss at the moment. @Beland makes good points here as well.  DM5 Pedia  01:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's because I merged Conviction of Donald Trump into this one and redirected to Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York. -- Beland (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose Can keep everything here perfectly fine, and there's absolutely no need for a separate "conviction" article at this point either. Reywas92Talk 19:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose and push towards more merges. There is a hazard in constatly splitting off many different pages of the same pages as they become POV magnets and POV forks whether or not they are intended that way in good faith. e.g. by spltting the reaction to the event from the event itself or even splitting it into positive vs negative reactions. We should aim to keep everything in one place so that readers can totally view the full story with the full spectrum of facts and opinions (and those opinions need to be treated with care) Jorahm (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose based on WP:SIZERULE, there is not really any justification for splitting right now, as it's in the "ideal" size range of 6,000 to 8,000 words. There is still plenty of room to include reactions to the conviction, as well as the trial itself. Best to wait until it grows beyond 9,000 words, which it probably will eventually. I otherwise do think the conviction article is GNG and splitting from the main article that is too big makes sense, and that this reactions article doesn't have much to do with that. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per WP:POV and WP:NETRUMP. LuxembourgLover (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Not notable enough. TheBritinator (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm removing the "proposal to split" from the article, as the above discussion seems to provide more justification for merging information into this article than for splitting it. - Brian Kendig (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete outdated paragraph
The following is outdated based on the page on the actual case, but I'm not sure if it's ok for me to delete it.

While the indictment has been published, it does not reveal the District Attorney's "specific legal theory" behind the case; for example, it is not specific about "how each of the charges was elevated to a felony", nor does it "specify the potential underlying crimes". While the law does not require such specificity, attorney Ken White and law professor Richard Klein have commented that this makes it difficult to assess the legal merits of the case. Seananony (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * If I'm remembering correctly, I heard on the radio the other day that the judge had the same complaint, and the prosecutors updated the complaint with more specifics. And in closing arguments presented a list of underlying crimes for the jury to consider. I think the text should be expanded to show the changing situation, rather than pretending that controversy never occurred. -- Beland (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)